The Goalposts keep shifting!

It's very exasperating to debate with pro Anwar bloggers. All this time I thought only Anwar keeps changing stories and instructions to his lawyers. There is a story going around that Suleiman Abdullah had to suffer receiving ever changing last minute instructions and storylines to follow. Even when en route to the court, Suleiman who rode in a car in front would still be receiving last minute new aspects to the story from Anwar who rode in another car behind.

The same affliction seems to affect pro Anwar bloggers. They keep shifting goalposts. It is impossible for a kaki bangku like I to score. You must have the skills of a Pele to score these kinds of goals.

Take the case of the CSIS seminar in Washington on the 24^th of February recently. Ernest Bower may have written a less than flattering piece on the current politics in Malaysia. A person may hold such views as are supported by the facts and information then. He is likely to amend his position as new information and facts emerge. You can't be dogmatic when it comes to facts.

It would be undemocratic of him to deny an opportunity for Malaysian government to present its side of the story. So the decision by Ernest Bower to hold a seminar in which representatives of the Malaysian government can present its views, should not be seen as a yellow bellied about face. Rather it could just be a fair decision to allow the opposing side the floor. That is the rule in debates right?

To suggest something sinister must have happened to Bower is just an exercise in setting down your traps in murky waters- menangguk di air keroh. It's a booby trap.

Nazri Aziz was leading a team of parliamentarians to Washington. There were others in his entourage including the much despised Big Zahrin Hashim. Why and how he was there isn't material. If he can shed some light on Anwar and PKR that benefit UMNO and BN, he should be applied to that task. He isn't going to get a standing ovation from PR anyway.

I am among those many people who share our loathsome perceptions of Nazri. But that cannot be an excuse to disbelieve him when he said; it was a coincidence that Ghani Patail and Tun Hamid Mohamad were in Washington at the same time. We didn't know whether the names of the other speakers were included later or not. The original speakers were supposed to be Nazri as the main speaker, the commissioner of MACC and maybe others.

There must have been some communications between our ambassador and the organizers of the CSIS seminar. It is customary for organizers to ask the interested party to recommend other names as the party sees fit and appropriate to be on the panel of speakers. Ghani Patail as we are told was in South America and the ambassador must have felt it profitable to include him as speaker. If he were present, most likely he would be speaking off the cuff or would have played a greater role in the Q&A session. As for Nazri, his visit could have been planned well ahead and this explained why he had prepared a paper to speak. This paper was for the record.

The portion which was off the record was the portion in the question and answer session. They probably contained material which if placed on record may be prejudicial to Anwar Ibrahim. But if the Malaysiakini rep was present throughout, we can be sure that the off the record portion will be printed sooner or later. It is safe to assume he left the building together with the reps from Amnesty International. He was the one who passed material to RPK to publish in Malaysia Today allowing RPK to say he has ears all over the world. We can't stop him beating his chest there.

We have answered that part about this being a waste of public funds. The cynical remark about our ambassador's purchase of a Porsche was sinister. It was intended to insinuate that JJ bought the car using public money. It is possible that embassy cars are rented not bought. It is also possible that JJ could have bought the car using his own funds. Diplomats can buy their cars at a fraction of the cost we buy. Certainly JJ is not a man of straw like this blogger and many of you. We should dismiss that naughty remark.

When everything is in disarray, suddenly a seminar in Washington becomes at the end, an issue of justice. We have been playing for 90 minutes and suddenly the goal is shifted again.

Here is where I encounter a problem. Anwar Ibrahim deserves justice. That we don't dispute. But his accuser, the alleged victim also deserves justice. Why is justice to Anwar more important than justice to Saiful? We need to know whether this Saiful is a fool and a liar.

We must move away from attributing Anwar an ascribed status. Just because of who he is- he is The Anwar Ibrahim, among the most influential people in the world, - therefore by being who he is, justice to him overrides justice to other people.

Anwar Ibrahim is a mere mortal. He has power to do good as well and immense power to do evil. He has the capability and ability to do evil as well as good. This power is independent of who he is. Now Saiful, though an unknown Malaysian and a non entity is also capable of doing good and evil. He can achieve all this.

Both Anwar Ibrahim and Saiful must be given achieved status- that is, both are capable of doing good and evil. Both are capable of committing wrongs. Both must be given the same justice. What we have done is to ascribe Anwar a special position. That being who he is, he deserved justice more than anyone else. But the justice we insist is justice ala Mr. Henry Ford- we can have any color we desire as long as it's black.